The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Causation: A User's Guide
Abstract
Causation is at once familiar and mysterious - we can detect its presence in the world, but we cannot agree on the metaphysics of the causal relation. L.A. Paul and Ned Hall guide the reader through the most important philosophical treatments of causation, and develop a broad and sophisticated understanding of the issues under debate.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This is not to say that counterfactual theories are without problems because every theory of causation faces challenges under some circumstances (Paul and Hall 2013:chap. 2).”
From Check Your Truth Conditions! Clarifying the Relationship between Theories of Causation and Social Science Methods for Causal Inference (2021) · cites this paper as Paul and Hall 2013
In the citing paper
“However, counterfactual dependence between events is not necessarily transitive (e.g., in cases of double prevention; Paul and Hall 2013:chap. 5).”
From Check Your Truth Conditions! Clarifying the Relationship between Theories of Causation and Social Science Methods for Causal Inference (2021) · cites this paper as Paul and Hall 2013
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grounding in the image of causation
Schaffer, J. (2015) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0438-1 · Cited by 554
Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015135 · Cited by 210
Gerstenberg, T., Peterson, M., Goodman, N. D., Lagnado, D. A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797617713053 · Cited by 135
The problem of variable choice
Woodward, J. (2015) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-015-0810-5 · Cited by 119
A Unifying Framework for Causal Analysis in Set-Theoretic Multimethod Research
Rohlfing, I., & Schneider, C. Q. (2018) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124115626170 · Cited by 98
Metadata
- Authors
- Paul, L. A., & Hall, N.
- ORCID
- Paul, L. A.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2013-04-25
- OpenAlex
- W4231896879
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 17.55
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- DIAL (Catholic University of Leuven) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
- Keywords
- causality, metaphysics of causation, causal relationship, philosophy of causation, causal theories
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
